Harsco Corp. v. Tracy

I respectfully dissent. By rigidly adhering to the averaging provision of R.C. 5711.16, the Tax Commissioner has ignored *194the equally important provisions of R.C. 5711.18, which require an assessment of ■true value and give the assessor flexibility to make adjustments to reflect true value. I believe this principle is also reflected in our holdings in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 96, 73 O.O.2d 353, 338 N.E.2d 366, and Avco Corp. v. Limbach (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 147, 555 N.E.2d 284.

In this case, the Tax Commissioner does not dispute that its evaluation method…